 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2008Rescuing Damaged Shuttle During Hubble Mission
The planned STS-125 Atlantis mission to Hubble includes a potential STS-400 rescue mission with Endeavour. Would NASA attempt to save Atlantis through a remote controlled landing using the RCO cable? It was my understanding that the RCO cable is stored on ISS, and thus would be unavailable for STS-125. Would they supply a second cable or "borrow" the RCO cable from ISS in advance? (At the cost of 6 pounds or so on the next mission to return it to ISS). > The planned STS-125 Atlantis mission to Hubble includes a potential > STS-400 rescue mission with Endeavour. Would NASA attempt to save > Atlantis through a remote controlled landing using the RCO cable? Possibly. > It was my understanding that the RCO cable is stored on ISS, and thus > would be unavailable for STS-125. Would they supply a second cable or > "borrow" the RCO cable from ISS in advance? (At the cost of 6 pounds or > so on the next mission to return it to ISS). There were two cables made; the other was used for SAIL testing. They could either flight-rate that one or fabricate a new one. There's nothing particularly special about the cable that makes it any harder to make. Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any damage being unfixable, maybe they would just leave it somewhere. Besides, surely they would send up someone who could add some repair materials, and they would already have two pilots, so provided they were sure about the fix, where is the problem, If its knackered, just put it out of harms way, if its not fix it and fly it back. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > The planned STS-125 Atlantis mission to Hubble includes a potential > STS-400 rescue mission with Endeavour. Would NASA attempt to save [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "borrow" the RCO cable from ISS in advance? (At the cost of 6 pounds or > so on the next mission to return it to ISS). > Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any > damage being unfixable, maybe they would just leave it somewhere. Besides, > surely they would send up someone who could add some repair materials, and > they would already have two pilots, so provided they were sure about the > fix, where is the problem, If its knackered, just put it out of harms way, > if its not fix it and fly it back. Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry > > Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any > > damage being unfixable, maybe they would just leave it somewhere. Besides, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and > uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry If that is true, why were the RCO cables built at all? > charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > If that is true, why were the RCO cables built at all? He referred to "unfixable" damage and coming back to it. The RCO cables do a few more things than just lowering the gear, some are needed for deorbit, whether it is for an unmanned landing or destructive entry >> charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> Well they are talking bout pensioning off Atlantis, and depending on any [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are needed for deorbit, whether it is for an unmanned landing or > destructive entry Actually, not quite true. The unmanned undock/disposal procedures were developed pre-RCO and do not require it. All the required switches (e.g. OMS ARM/PRESS) are set prior to undocking. There is one hardware hack that is required regardless of whether a disposal or recovery via RCO is to be attempted. That is for the crew to power off DC bus main B, "hotwire" the undocking pushbutton on panel A7L, then egress. Once the hatches are closed, MCC can start the undocking simply by sending a command to re-power main B. > There is one hardware hack that is required regardless of whether a > disposal or recovery via RCO is to be attempted. That is for the crew to > power off DC bus main B, "hotwire" the undocking pushbutton on panel > A7L, then egress. Once the hatches are closed, MCC can start the > undocking simply by sending a command to re-power main B. Hmmm...jamming the pushbutton using a splinter of a match? 8-) Jan > Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and > uncontrollable. That is the reason for the destructive entry Don't know what your definition of "electrically dead" is. But in my mind, if there is an orbiter in that condition, they wouldn't even be able to fire the de-orbit burn and the shuttle would be worse off than skylab. It wouldn't be a "destructive entry", it would be a "uncontrolled re-entry" probably a few years after the event until the orbit decays sufficiently. Consider that Hubble is high enough that it doesn't need frequent reboosts from the shuttle. A shuttle in that orbit would take a very long time to de-orbit by itself if it were electrically dead. > charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Not doable. �The vehicle would be electrically dead and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > reboosts from the shuttle. A shuttle in that orbit would take a very > long time to de-orbit by itself if it were electrically dead. they might also blow it up like that spy sat. perhaps with a warhead? wonder how much of a shuttle would survive re entry after a intentional attack? On Apr 21, 6:30 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > they might also blow it up like that spy sat. perhaps with a warhead? > > wonder how much of a shuttle would survive re entry after a > intentional attack? That would be worse. There would be more surviving pieces over a larger area > they might also blow it up like that spy sat. perhaps with a warhead? > > wonder how much of a shuttle would survive re entry after a > intentional attack? I think doing that would be worse. If it reenters in one piece and breaks up during re-entry, there is little or nothing left in orbit to cause problems. Yes, there is a chance of large portions reach the ground (as it did in Texas). If you blow it up, you'll have lots of little bits at various altitudes, some of which will take much longer to de-orbit all the while introducing unnecessary risks to other operations. > I think doing that would be worse. If it reenters in one piece and > breaks up during re-entry, there is little or nothing left in orbit to > cause problems. Yes, there is a chance of large portions reach the > ground (as it did in Texas). maybe a minor nit.. but didn't the vehicle pretty much break up post-reentry? or at least in the late-late stages of re-entry. so if the orbiter was somehow fragmented or otherwise broken apart prior to the entry interface any surviving pieces would be pretty much on the way to vaporized when they reached the point columbia came apart... ? -r (pure speculation.. i claim no brains were involved in the making of this post) > maybe a minor nit.. but didn't the vehicle pretty much break up > post-reentry? or at least in the late-late stages of re-entry. so if the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -r (pure speculation.. i claim no brains were involved in the making of > this post) Good point--an uncontrolled re-entry would most likely cause breakup to begin well before the point at which Columbia disintegrated. The damage to Columbia caused it to try to turn, and the flight control systems did a great job of fighting to keep things pointed forward--I suspect, without that effort, even Columbia would have broken up even sooner... If there is control of vehicle, the could force break up even sooner by putting her tail-first (as previously mentioned by someone else) which would cause failure even sooner. Another option might be to leave the bay doors open and fly in nose-up, roof-forward attitude, exposing the cargo bay... Well... this is all speculation--I just hope we never need to find out what they would do... > charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Not doable. The vehicle would be electrically dead and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > reboosts from the shuttle. A shuttle in that orbit would take a very > long time to de-orbit by itself if it were electrically dead. The shuttle will come down faster than Hubble due to larger surface area |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.